Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA's Asteroid Redirect Mission May Not Actually Redirect an Asteroid

Posted by Soulskill on from the not-because-it-is-easy-but-because-it-is-hard dept.

MarkWhittington writes: When President Obama first proposed visiting an asteroid in his 2010 speech at the Kennedy Space Center, many assumed that the mission would be a deep space mission to an Earth-approaching asteroid in its "native orbit" in voyage taking weeks. Then, NASA dropped the idea in 2013 favor of the Asteroid Redirect Mission in which a tiny asteroid would be diverted to lunar orbit to be visited by astronauts. Now, according to a Thursday story in Space News, the ARM might take place without redirecting an asteroid.

45 of 73 comments (clear)

  1. We can't even send a man into LEO anymore, people! by NotDrWho · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Did anyone really think that NASA was seriously going to not only divert an asteroid to lunar orbit, but also send astronauts there??? NASA hasn't put anyone in lunar orbit in over 40 years. And they haven't even been able to put an astronaut in LEO for years.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  2. Just visit the damn Moon by gatkinso · · Score: 2

    There it is! It has water, Helium-3, oxygen in the rocks. WTF is the problem?

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    1. Re:Just visit the damn Moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It has nothing of the sort. The ocean has dissolved gold, platinum, and heavy hydrogen too, why don't you go there?

      I don't understand what's so important about He-3? Is it a sci-fi thing? Do you think we live in Star Trek and some blind dude in engineering will talk gibberish and you'll get magic things?

      The Moon has water in the same way the air has cheese in it. Now go eat it.

      Idiot.

    2. Re:Just visit the damn Moon by k6mfw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      WTF is the problem?

      no money for a lander. That's why Moon is off limits (human landings that is). Until NASA is given money for a lander, the moon is simply not discussed. Mars is discussed even though no money for lander or habitat module while getting there, but that's far off into the future (much like fusion power plants, flying cars, etc.).

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    3. Re:Just visit the damn Moon by Megane · · Score: 4, Informative

      And we now have the best reason ever to go back to the moon. We must build an Olympic-size swimming pool on the moon!

      Also, He3 is a very stupid reason to go to the moon. It requires level 2 nuclear fusion, and we haven't reached level 1 yet. lrn2civ noob

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    4. Re:Just visit the damn Moon by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Funny

      A space ship is not designed to hold up against a salt water environment.

      That was obvious in the last Star Trek movie.

    5. Re:Just visit the damn Moon by tlambert · · Score: 4, Interesting

      WTF is the problem?

      no money for a lander. That's why Moon is off limits (human landings that is). Until NASA is given money for a lander, the moon is simply not discussed. Mars is discussed even though no money for lander or habitat module while getting there, but that's far off into the future (much like fusion power plants, flying cars, etc.).

      Too bad they don't just go ahead with the original DC-X plans; then they'd have a launch vehicle, an orbital transfer vehicle, a fuel tanker, and a lunar lander.

      Oh, that's right; Boeing *ATE* McDonnell Douglas and cancelled it.

      Well, they could have always finished off the National Aerospace Plane (the X-30), and separately developed a lander.

      Oh, that's right, Boeing *ATE* Rockwell and cancelled it.
       
      ...I'm sensing a pattern here...

    6. Re:Just visit the damn Moon by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      It has nothing of the sort. The ocean has dissolved gold, platinum, and heavy hydrogen too, why don't you go there?

      I think the idea is that anything in bulk lifted from the Moon is easier to get to Earth orbit than the same stuff lifted from Earth, so in the long run, it could make sense to supply LEO with bulk materials from the Moon. The same argument doesn't hold for deep sea resources and the places of their utilization.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    7. Re:Just visit the damn Moon by gatkinso · · Score: 1

      This is actually an idea that I forward myself quite often - ocean exploration is a far better (and in many ways more challenging) endeavor than space exploration. Plus with much greater ROI.

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    8. Re:Just visit the damn Moon by gatkinso · · Score: 1

      >> no money..

      No need to go further.

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    9. Re:Just visit the damn Moon by gatkinso · · Score: 1

      Helium-3 isn't a reason to go, just a very nice to have once you get there.

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    10. Re:Just visit the damn Moon by gatkinso · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There are great reasons to go back... none of them are financial. Which is why we won't be going back any time soon.

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    11. Re:Just visit the damn Moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If they were "great" reasons, the finances would follow. Ergo, the reasons aren't that great.

    12. Re:Just visit the damn Moon by dbIII · · Score: 1

      It's also the last Star Trek movie since the Federation Fleet got replaced by a belt buckle.

    13. Re:Just visit the damn Moon by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Actually, no.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    14. Re:Just visit the damn Moon by lucien86 · · Score: 1

      You're an anonymous coward.. snivelling coward.. and a luddite as well.. If you came out as a child molester as well it might actually improve peoples opinions of you..

      --
      Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
    15. Re:Just visit the damn Moon by lucien86 · · Score: 1

      But none of those things are technically more than about five years from being possible. If nuclear fusion had been treated as a priority in the 80's or 90's we would probably have working fusion plants today.. Same with a manned Mars mission.. The only reason we don't have all these things and far more is that America and the world are run by religious idiots and short sighted morons.. The way NASA and space science are financed is the whole problem - no long term budgets, no long term coherency, no long term vision, no real long term planning.

      Every time a program gets cancelled or changed millions or even billions get flushed down the toilet.. Kennedy, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush sen, Clinton, Bush W, Obama - not a single president is innocent. If we were going to pick out the three worst it would be Nixon (cancelled NERVA & Saturn), Reagan (Cancelled the Space Tug crippling the Shuttle), and Bush W (cancelled the Shuttle replacement - without replacing it).. Don't kid yourself America and the world have the money.

      Take $1 trillion out of the budget and give it to a new overseer body over NASA as a twenty year funding block and they could achieve all the space missions we need to really put human kind into space.. and without the drip drip uncertainty of yearly based funding would probably at least double their overall financial efficiency..

      --
      Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
    16. Re:Just visit the damn Moon by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      Except for the fact that it does nothing to spread out the human species. Right now, if a calamity befalls Earth such as an asteroid/comet impact, or the explosion of the Yosemite supervolcano, or global thermonuclear war, we get wiped out as a species. In the long run, we MUST leave Earth if for no other reason that to get all our eggs out of one basket.

      And, if you want to be REALLY forward thinking, we have to eventually leave this entire solar system, as our Sun will eventually burn out, turn into a red giant, swallow Mercury and Venus, and probably Earth as well if it isn't burned to a cinder already.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    17. Re:Just visit the damn Moon by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      The DC-X and NASP were cancelled because they were unworkable concepts. The prototypes you saw up until cancellation were about as space-ready as my toaster is. There were too many problems with materials and performance that we do not have the technology to overcome just yet. Boeing recognized this and that's why the ideas were shelved, not some Vast Corporate Conspiracy.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    18. Re:Just visit the damn Moon by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      Nixon (cancelled NERVA & Saturn)

      Saturn rocket was way too expensive to be sustainable, NERVA was cancelled because only need for it is to go to Mars (and no money for that so need for such a rocket).

      Reagan (Cancelled the Space Tug crippling the Shuttle)

      problem with space tug is amount of energy to change orbits is more than sending a spacecraft to the moon. Gemini, Apollo, Shuttle can change orbit inclinations but these were very small.

      Bush W (cancelled the Shuttle replacement - without replacing it)

      Most certain intent was to "scuttle the fleet" to motivate a development of a new vehicle much like Cortez scuttling his fleet to motivate his troops to take down the Aztec Empire. Silly analogy but according to Paul Spudis there was this kind of thinking.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    19. Re:Just visit the damn Moon by Megane · · Score: 1

      So you can inflate your party balloons?

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  3. Mars Needs Nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Missions in preparation for going to Mars, what a waste. We aren't going to Mars in this century.

    Besides, what does Mars have that the moon doesn't? A little more gravity? Shorter days -- that you wouldn't appreciate anyway, buried under your radiation shielding? A smattering of useless atmosphere?

    We should develop extra terrestrial habitation technology on the moon first. It is incredibly conveniently close to Earth.

    1. Re:Mars Needs Nothing by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

      We should develop extra terrestrial habitation technology on the moon first. It is incredibly conveniently close to Earth.

      Well, it's conveniently close in the sense that it's just like driving to Texas...after driving around the Equator ten times first.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    2. Re:Mars Needs Nothing by Megane · · Score: 1

      We aren't going to Mars in this century.

      Who is "we"? I just read today that Elon Musk expects to get 80,000 people there by 2040. (I think that's a bit ambitious, but certainly doable in 25 years for a much smaller mission.)

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    3. Re:Mars Needs Nothing by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Screw Mars! Go to Venus or stay home!

    4. Re:Mars Needs Nothing by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Your comparison would be a lot more apt if we could drive around the equator ten times in less than three days.

      Or even fly around the equator ten times in three days (five days flight for an SR-71, assuming inflight refueling 80 times could be done in an average of about one minute).

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    5. Re:Mars Needs Nothing by Megane · · Score: 1

      after driving around the Equator ten times first

      If driving over the ocean doesn't stop you, the Darién Gap will, after you turn north.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    6. Re:Mars Needs Nothing by insanecarbonbasedlif · · Score: 1

      Besides, what does Mars have that the moon doesn't? A little more gravity? Shorter days -- that you wouldn't appreciate anyway, buried under your radiation shielding?

      Let me stop you right there. Pretty sure Mars has longer days, and I could always use a little more sleep.

      --
      Just because I doubt myself does not mean I find your position compelling.
    7. Re:Mars Needs Nothing by tlambert · · Score: 2

      Missions in preparation for going to Mars, what a waste. We aren't going to Mars in this century.

      Besides, what does Mars have that the moon doesn't?

      A couple of moons to build bases and way-stations on for asteroid mining, and whose escape velocity is so close to nothing that a spring-loaded catapult would be enough to launch spacecraft without burning a lot of expensive reaction mass.

    8. Re:Mars Needs Nothing by smaddox · · Score: 1

      The month-long day/night cycle and low gravity are significant issues for long-term habitation of the Moon. There's also evidence now that Moon quakes regularly hit 5.5 Richters and last for 10 minutes. Mars presents plenty of challenges, but it's nowhere near as bad as the Moon.

    9. Re:Mars Needs Nothing by Imrik · · Score: 1

      Mars days are roughly the same as Earth days. Moon days are almost the same as the lunar cycle on Earth, so the moon has far longer days.

    10. Re:Mars Needs Nothing by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      Mars is also a nine-month journey with no practical prospect of a "turn around and go home if something goes wrong" option. The moon is three days away and a free-return abort is built into the flight plan (along with a direct abort if the situation is dire). The scale of the two missions is completely different, with Mars being vastly more difficult mainly due to time.

      I'm a big fan of the lunar base idea. Start there and develop -- or re-develop, as the case may be -- the technologies needed to get us reliably to and from the moon. Lunar habitats can be inflatable, or built underground using locally available materials. Hell, we could put robots on the moon to BUILD the habitats before we ever go there in person, making the whole trip a lot safer. And remotely controlling robots on the moon is a helluva lot easier than doing the same on Mars. Water is present on the moon for rocket fuel. Solar power is reasonable, but a small fission reactor would be much better. The escape velocity for the moon is lower than Mars and vastly lower than Earth. And asteroid capture missions could redirect to the moon instead of Earth, where the risk of "losing" and asteroid and having it impact would be negligible compared to aiming one at Earth and hoping you don't hit a populated area.

      In short, a sustainable lunar base could be used as a springboard for future manned missions to Mars and the outer planets. The moon is IDEAL for this for every reason except one: it currently has no infrastructure for building or launching anything. Let's remedy that as soon as possible instead of trying to figure out how to haul everything out of Earth's gravity well and dense atmosphere. Grab an asteroid, send it to lunar orbit, smelt it down in orbit and construct your spacecraft THERE instead of on the surface. Complex items that cannot be easily made in orbit can be made on the lunar surface and launched via magnetic catapults into lunar orbit for final assembly. Or, for that matter, a lunar space elevator. The lower gravity and lack of atmosphere means we can construct a lunar space elevator with existing materials RIGHT NOW. Forget the magical unobtanium needed to make one on Earth; we just turn the moon into our launch platform for the solar system. Long term, instead of just redirecting asteroids to the moon, we can get to Saturn and grab a few cubic miles of water ice from its rings. Sent to the moon, it could provide water, breathable oxygen, and fuel for thousands of missions.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    11. Re:Mars Needs Nothing by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      If driving over the ocean isn't going to stop him the Darién Gap will do nothing because then you can simply drive over the Caribbean sea and avoid that swamp all together.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    12. Re:Mars Needs Nothing by insanecarbonbasedlif · · Score: 1

      Mars days are roughly the same as Earth days. Moon days are almost the same as the lunar cycle on Earth, so the moon has far longer days.

      Roughly the same sure, but longer nonetheless, and certainly not shorter as the post I replied to said.

      --
      Just because I doubt myself does not mean I find your position compelling.
  4. Re:We can't even send a man into LEO anymore, peop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yeah, and the Navy hasn't put anyone into permanent underwater habitats since the 1960s. So what? They did it, they collected the data, and concluded it was useless.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    Just like sending people to the Moon.

  5. Won't be long before... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

    NASA's budget will shrink so much that the asteroid will become a basketball being diverted into a hoop at Cape Canaveral.

    1. Re:Won't be long before... by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Only if they can find a way to outsource the building of the hoop into 40+ states and create 10,000 jobs in order to gain enough support in Congress.

  6. Voting by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Rather than allow representatives to battle back and forth, it would be nice if there were a federal ballot to vote on such issues:

    A. Land on asteroid
    B. Land on moon
    C. Do neither (save the money)

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
    1. Re:Voting by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Or,

      A. Destroy Iraq,
      B. Destroy Afganistan,
      C. Do neither (save the money)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  7. Re:Hey, losers by gatkinso · · Score: 1

    Also, a bunch of one legged manbeasts with a huge foot live in the Orient.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  8. Re:We can't even send a man into LEO anymore, peop by Beck_Neard · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's amazing how NASA has gone from a genuinely benign government agency advancing the sciences to a parasitic organization that acts a distributor of government pork. And they have a lot of good PR for what they do - hordes of nerds echoing insanely stupid sentiments like 'penny on the dollar!!!'

    It was sad enough when NASA's so-called 'mission to prepare for Mars' was actually a pathetic plan involving moving a tiny asteroid to Earth/Lunar orbit and then sending some astronauts up there to take selfies. But now the mission has been downscaled even beyond that level, to where they're basically fine if they can just get a electric propulsion system to work. This would be akin to downscaling the Apollo program to a test-stand demonstration of a rocket engine firing.

    End NASA's manned space program. Fire NASA management. Focus on the stuff NASA does best (robotic exploration). Fuck the congresspeople who piggyback on enthusiasm for space to send money to their own districts.

    --
    A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
  9. Re:We can't even send a man into LEO anymore, peop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Robotic exploration is EXTREMELY limited. The farther away the object you want to study, the more limited the kind of science you can make with a robot. A team of four scientists with a descender module and a rover for one of them can replicate the last 50 years of mars exploration in 3-4 days in orbit and 1 day on surface. 4-5 days to get the same science we gathered and much much more.

  10. Re:We can't even send a man into LEO anymore, peop by Beck_Neard · · Score: 1

    > The farther away the object you want to study, the more limited the kind of science you can make with a robot.

    And that's even more true for manned exploration...

    --
    A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
  11. relax. we are going around 2020. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    This assumes that the fucking GOP will quit trying to harm private space. But Bigelow and musk want to go there then. Bigelow is counting on this to drive all nations to use their inflatable space stations. Sadly, the GOP wants to kill off private space and continue push money into their SLS nightmare.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  12. Re: We can't even send a man into LEO anymore, peo by GaryHayman · · Score: 1

    LEO is low earth orbit, not lunar orbit.